Qualifications for President and the “Natural-Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement

edge919 wrote: “Snip???? What the hell are you talking about? What do you imagine was snipped??”

The texts which showed the vast difference, obviously. I know you don’t like that your own citations refute you, but understand, snipping the text just means it won’t appear in your comment. It’s still there in Ex parte Lockwood,

“In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since; but that the right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment did not add to these privileges and immunities. Hence, that a provision in a state constitution which confined the right of voting to male citizens of the United States was no violation of the federal constitution.” Ex parte Lockwood , 154 U.S. 116 (1894)

MMaschin emphasized that in Ex parte Lockwood the Court was stating the *holding* in Minor. I looked up Ex parte Lockwood, and quoted the entire paragraph on Minor to show that the meaning of “natural born” was *not* in what the Court stated as the holding.

edge919 wrote: “Fuller is responding to part of the appeal from the lower court, which was based on a citation where the child of a Chinese citizen was characterized as a “natural-born citizen.”

So just quote where Fuller says so. I quoted Fuller introducing his dissent with, “I cannot concur in the opinion and judgment of the court in this case”. That means this court, the Supreme Court, not the lower court.

LucyT thought: “BladeBryan is an 0b0t retread who used to post as Drew68...”

Drew68 still posts as Drew68, at least as of two days ago. I’m not him.

Yes, we agree. Original intent of 14th was for Slaves, not alien bastards of foreign citizens dumped on our soil from Hawaiian street walkers.

The texts which showed the vast difference, obviously.

Not at all.

I know you don’t like that your own citations refute you, but understand, snipping the text just means it won’t appear in your comment.

This is an interesting delusion. In order to "snip" something, I would have to quote it first. I responded to your post, but I didn't quote it in that post, so there was nothing to snip. You don't seem to understand how this works. Whatever you seem to think was "snipped" was never quoted.

MMaschin emphasized that in Ex parte Lockwood the Court was stating the *holding* in Minor. I looked up Ex parte Lockwood, and quoted the entire paragraph on Minor to show that the meaning of “natural born” was *not* in what the Court stated as the holding.

And I responded to this, which you've punted in favor of a phantom "snip" complaint.

So just quote where Fuller says so. I quoted Fuller introducing his dissent with, “I cannot concur in the opinion and judgment of the court in this case”. That means this court, the Supreme Court, not the lower court.

This is a nonsense assumption. There's nothing in the majority opinion that says this. For your point to make sense, then ALL of the elements in this quote must appear in the majority opinion. They don't.

“I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural-born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”

A) The majority says nothing about geographical tracts, much less all citizens being born within it as being natural-born citizens.
B) The majority mentions Mongolian, it doesn't mention Malay.
C) The majority nowhere mentions anything about presidential eligibility except in citing the phrase natural-born citizen and the language around it from Art II Sect I. It posits NOTHING about who may or may not be eligible.
D) The majority doesn't use the term "royal parentage."

As for where this issue came from, I've already explained. It was posited in the government's appeal.

Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patiots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?

edge919 wrote: “And I responded to this, which you’ve punted in favor of a phantom “snip” complaint.”

The text refutes you, so you left it out, which in net-talk is called “snipping”. Nothing hard to understand.

edge919 wrote: “This is a nonsense assumption. There’s nothing in the majority opinion that says this.”

So that would be no, you can’t quote Fuller saying he was responding to the lower court. Perhaps the Chief Justice understood the implications of the majority opinion better than you do.

The text refutes you, so you left it out, which in net-talk is called “snipping”. Nothing hard to understand.

Sorry, but this is a stupid argument. The text doesn't refute me. It requires citizen parents which matches the definition of NBC. That doesn't refute my definition. It reinforces it.

So that would be no, you can’t quote Fuller saying he was responding to the lower court. Perhaps the Chief Justice understood the implications of the majority opinion better than you do.

Implications?? It was spelled out in the appeal, which I just showed you. There wasn't anything to imply. The majority punted the question altogether. Nothing comes close to being the source of such an implication. You're grasping at straws.

This subject either really bothers you or you have way too much time on your hands. You've responded to almost every post in this thread. Sorry Charlie, but it's quite obvious that you're a paid Obot. We will continue to ignore you. Good bye.

DiogenesLamp wrote: “I, on the other hand believe they get their authority from the consent of the governed, and that THEY are the servants and WE are the masters.”

We are. As an American hero and conservative statesman said: “The American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly.” — John S. McCain, 04 Nov 2008.

As for where this issue came from, I've already explained. It was posited in the government's appeal.

But what difference does that make? The District Court issued a writ of habeas corpus based on WKA's being a citizen. Since neither of his parents were citizens, the only thing that would make him a citizen was that he was born in the United States. If the government's appeal expressed concern that WKA was eligible for the presidency, that means they recognized that that was the implication of the District Court's decision. So it doesn't matter whether Fuller was addressing that decision or the Supreme Court's decision. Either way, he saw that upholding the District Court's decision meant WKA was eligible.

But what difference does that make?

A lot. It simply shows this judge was taking considerations from a variety of sources, not just from the opinion of the majority. His rejection of the majority decision may be justified upon several things that are neither, mentioned, implied, nor presumed from that opinion.

The District Court issued a writ of habeas corpus based on WKA's being a citizen. Since neither of his parents were citizens, the only thing that would make him a citizen was that he was born in the United States.

By virtue of the 14th amendment which according to the majority, does NOT say who shall be natural born citizens.

If the government's appeal expressed concern that WKA was eligible for the presidency, that means they recognized that that was the implication of the District Court's decision.

It was based on a citation of a separate case mentioned in the District Court opinion. The appeal proposed a question based on a speculative outcome. It's not based on a holding of the District Court's decision. It didn't declare Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen; it cited a separate case that did declare a child of Chinese subjects to be natural-born. That's not a binding precedent, especially when the 9-0 decision in Minor contradicts that possibility.

So it doesn't matter whether Fuller was addressing that decision or the Supreme Court's decision. Either way, he saw that upholding the District Court's decision meant WKA was eligible.

The problem is that there is NOTHING in the majority opinion that says this nor implies it. All we have is a question in the appeal and an answer in the dissent. Neither the appeal nor the dissent provide the legal precedent for defining NBC, especially when the majority opinion affirms the one, true and exclusive definition: all children born in the country to citizen parents.

“Mr. Hughes was born before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, so the status of his citizenship must be considered as under the laws existing prior to the time of the adoption of that Amendment.”

Oh look — he wants to apply the law from *more* than a century ago, though writing 95 years ago.

This may be complicated for you, but Article II was written at that time, and it's provisions did not change.

Is that too hard a subtraction problem for you, to figure out that 1884 is more than a century ago? Or are you justified in disputing my claim of “in our time” because you are over 127 yeas old? Here again are the claims you were trying to refute:

Your objection is beside the point. The gist of your statement is that this issue is a "made up" "Phony Balony" issue created by "birthers" just to pick on the "black" President, when in fact it has ALWAYS been an issue, and but for the persistence of people (such as yourself) who insist on obfuscating it, The American people would be better informed.

Whether or not it was the conspiracy you imagine, the CRS report does recognize the time scale: “the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century”.

You mistake me for someone else. I see no "conspiracy." What I see is Democrat Hacks protecting other Democrat hacks. If you look at it that way, the Democrat party is nothing more than one big conspiracy. (Which probably isn't far off the truth at that.)

What’s more, in our time there were no advocates for the theory that a native-born citizen’s eligibility depends upon the citizenship of his parents. Of course that changed in 2008, when a certain faction wanted reasons to argue that Barack Obama cannot be president.

And AGAIN, I have to explain this to you! The FIRST question of interest was whether Barack was EVEN A CITIZEN. That had to be (sort-of) established before it was even worthwhile to consider the NEXT question, that being whether he was a "Natural born citizen." Till some sort of evidence was produced to indicate whether or not he was even BORN here, there was no reason whatsoever to worry if he met any criteria beyond that. As it stands now, I've not yet seen irrefutable proof that he even has 14th Amendment citizenship.

Who'da thunk that Hawaii would issue birth certificates to people not actually born there?

The salient point here is that YOU are attempting to mislead others, and impugn the motives of those who question the eligibility of Barack Obama. You can couch it in whatever hidden terms you like, but your intentions shine through quite clearly, and in my opinion they are dishonest. I'm having none of your qualifiers such as "in our time", we both know what you are getting at.

Sadly, this won't even slow the Birthers [ Obots ] down. The only Birthers [Obots ] left at this point are the True Believers.

I guess you're probably right about that.

And the rule of the True Believers is: It simply doesn't matter what the facts are. Any facts that don't align with their "reality" are "bogus" and can be safely disregarded.

That's a two-way street Jeff-boy, but it never occurred to you. Definitely demonstrates the mind-set of a True beliver.

DiogenesLamp wrote: “I, on the other hand believe they get their authority from the consent of the governed, and that THEY are the servants and WE are the masters.”

We are. As an American hero and conservative statesman said: “The American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly.” — John S. McCain, 04 Nov 2008.

Blah Blah Blah. If he was so smart, he would have realized he was being screwed. The STUPID half of the American people voted for an unqualified and ineligible idiot based on what the Glitterati and News Organizations brainwashed them into believing. Representative Democracy only functions when the public is informed and responsible. As the Media has become nothing but the propaganda arm of the Democrat party, I no longer regard any Federal election as untainted.

The Media gave away for free at least a BILLION dollars worth of free advertising to Barack Obama, and they likewise did hit pieces on both Palin and McCain that were worth at least as much. The RNC should SUE all media outlets for Campaign Finance law violation. At this point I believe the RNC has an incestuous relationship with these people, and that is why they don't regard them as adversaries.

I would like to see News executives facing massive fines for hiring biased reporters and attempting to skew elections with false reporting and failures to report derogatory information regarding their preferred choices. (Billy Ayers has now admitted that he Hosted Obama's First fund raiser in his house. A story the media "debunked" as a fabrication.)

This is no longer funny or tolerable. People need to go to jail for this stuff.

But what difference does that make? The District Court issued a writ of habeas corpus based on WKA's being a citizen. Since neither of his parents were citizens, the only thing that would make him a citizen was that he was born in the United States. If the government's appeal expressed concern that WKA was eligible for the presidency, that means they recognized that that was the implication of the District Court's decision. So it doesn't matter whether Fuller was addressing that decision or the Supreme Court's decision. Either way, he saw that upholding the District Court's decision meant WKA was eligible.

You are trying to think with someone else's brain. Just because they may have thought that, doesn't make it so. As has been demonstrated, the Court could reject that argument while still asserting WKA is a "citizen". (Which happend to be the ruling. "Citizen." Not "Natural born citizen.") Beyond that, their argument might have just been a last ditch attempt to sway the court to side with them. Lawyers want to win, you know.

The problem is that there is NOTHING in the majority opinion that says this nor implies it.

Apparently both the district attorney and Justice Fuller thought there was something that implied it, or they wouldn't have brought it up.

By virtue of the 14th amendment which according to the majority, does NOT say who shall be natural born citizens.

And it doesn't who who shan't be, either.

It's pretty simple: WKA was denied re-entry to the US on the grounds that he wasn't a citizen, despite being born here. He said, "Am too," and the District Court agreed. The government appealed, and as part of it said "Really? You want to let someone like this be president?" The Supreme Court upheld the District Court. It's true that they didn't answer the government's question explicitly, but the dissenter said "I can't believe you're going to let someone like this be president." Clearly, both the government lawyer and Justice Fuller saw that that's what the WKA decision meant.

I'm really starting to think you can't be serious about this--that this is some kind of elaborate troll. You really expect us to believe that someone can't have written "Do you really mean that the child of some Malay passing through can be president, just because he was born here?" in response to a decision unless "Malay" was mentioned in the decision? That's absurd on its face.

You are trying to think with someone else's brain.

We're all trying to think with someone else's brain. You're trying to think with the government attorney's brain, to dismiss the significance of their question; edge919's trying to think with Fuller's brain to explain why, when he wrote "I disagree with the court," he didn't mean his court but some other one. It's a necessary part of interpreting the words of people long dead.

We're all trying to think with someone else's brain. You're trying to think with the government attorney's brain, to dismiss the significance of their question; edge919's trying to think with Fuller's brain to explain why, when he wrote "I disagree with the court," he didn't mean his court but some other one. It's a necessary part of interpreting the words of people long dead.

My point is that you need to make every effort to be comprehensive about the arguments and the motivation behind them. Attorneys have a habit of spinning things if it helps them win. The Government attorneys may very well have offered that argument in the hopes that the Judges would buy it, but not necessarily because they believed it themselves.

As a Judge said to Abraham Lincoln, "Mr. Lincoln, early this morning in my court you argued a case which you won. And now later today I find you in my court, offering the exact opposite argument this afternoon. Would you explain yourself?"

Lincoln replied: "Your Honor, this morning when I made those arguments, I thought I was correct. Now that I have had more time to think about it, I decided this afternoon that the argument I am making now is even more correct. "

(Or words to that effect.)

The Fact remains that when article II was written, there existed "citizens" which were not "natural born citizens" demonstrating unequivocally that the one thing is not the same as the other, with the difference being only that of Presidential eligibility. Had the Supreme court used the terminology "natural born citizen" then the Government attorney's arguments would have been valid. As they chose to use the word "citizen" it is not.

Too many people are misunderstanding the term to mean "born a citizen." which it does not. What it means is born as "natural citizen."

Apparently both the district attorney and Justice Fuller thought there was something that implied it, or they wouldn't have brought it up.

The "district attorney" didn't think anything was implied in the majority opinion. They didn't write that opinion before he filed his appeal. You don't seem to understand how the process works.

And it doesn't who who shan't be, either.

No, that part is covered by the majority's definition: all children born in the country to citizen parents, which matches the Law of Nations definition quoted in the Dissent.

It's pretty simple: WKA was denied re-entry to the US on the grounds that he wasn't a citizen, despite being born here. He said, "Am too," and the District Court agreed. The government appealed, and as part of it said "Really? You want to let someone like this be president?"

Not quite. Wong Kim Ark's attorney quoted a similar case where the court declared the person to be a "natural-born citizen." The District Court accepted the general citizenship claim of Wong Kim Ark, but did not itself call him a natural-born citizen. Government counsel posed a question based on the inclusion to the term, making an inferrance that the SCOTUS dissent addressed, but was punted by the majority punted. Last I heard, the dissent doesn't create the legal precedent.

I'm really starting to think you can't be serious about this--that this is some kind of elaborate troll. You really expect us to believe that someone can't have written "Do you really mean that the child of some Malay passing through can be president, just because he was born here?" in response to a decision unless "Malay" was mentioned in the decision? That's absurd on its face.

I'm sure you're an expert on being a troll. You've cherry-picked a small part of my reply ignoring that the whole of the reply proves my point. That you would do this weak cherry-picked is not absurd on its face, but completely absurd as is the rest of your post.

What’s more, in our time there were no advocates for the theory that a native-born citizen’s eligibility depends upon the citizenship of his parents. Of course that changed in 2008, when a certain faction wanted reasons to argue that Barack Obama cannot be president.

I take you back to the year 2005, long before I ever heard of him. My wife was pregnant with our son. As my wife was a permanent resident at the time, I distinctly remember myself thinking that our son would never be able to be POTUS. Immediately followed by the thought that I would never want him to be POTUS, anyway.

For as long as I can remember, my understanding of nbC was always "born in the country to two citizen parents." And there have been plenty of other posts on these threads from other people who also have believed the same for many years. So please stop pretending that it's a new idea. It's not.

Now go away.

My point is that you need to make every effort to be comprehensive about the arguments and the motivation behind them.

Yes, of course. My point is just that you don't get to speculate about what the US attorneys meant and then complain that I'm trying to think with someone else's brain.